(1) KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTIONS AND USES OF RESISTANCE TRAINING TECHNOLOGIES: A PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Purpose: To investigate the knowledge and opinions of force plates (FP), linear position transducers (LPT), inertial measurement units (IMU), 3D motion capture cameras (CAM), and smartphone applications (APP) amongst strength and conditioning practitioners. Further, this study investigated how these technologies are being utilized by strength and conditioning practitioners of various levels and settings.  

Methods: An electronic survey was advertised on social media platforms, specifically targeting individuals in strength and conditioning, sport science, and person training. Forty individuals completed the survey. Demographic information such as gender, age, country, and education were collected. Employment (title, clients, setting) and professional (certifications, tenure, data were also collected. For each technology (FP, LPT, IMU, CAM, and APP), subjects were asked to rate their familiarity with the technology on a 5-point Likert scale. Further, subjects were asked to report their opinion on the accuracy, reliability, portability, price, versatility, ease of use, and value of each device on a 3-point Likert scale. Lastly, subjects who identified as current or previous users of the technology were asked questions regarding the types of activities in which the technology is used. Frequency of responses for each question were calculated. All data presented are percent of total respondents.

Results: In terms of current use, the highest reported was FP (57%) followed by APP (37.5%) and LPT (32.5%), with IMU (27.5%) and CAM (17.5%) reporting the lowest usage. A majority of subjects reported “Agree” on the question of Accuracy for FP (82.5%), LPT (54.1%), and CAM (65%), while a majority reported “Neutral” for IMU (67.5%) and APP (62.2%). In terms of price, a majority of subjects reported “Agree” that FP (70.0%) and CAM (82.5%) are Expensive. In terms of Good Value, LPT (73.0%) had the highest amount of subjects report “Agree”. Similarly, the largest proportion of subjects reported “Agree” that LPT (81.1%) were Easy to Use. Amongst FP users, the most common usages of FP were for Vertical Jump Testing (90.9%), Isometric Strength Testing (78.8%%), and Fatigue/Performance Monitoring (63.6%). For LPT, the most common uses were Force-Velocity Profiling (84.4%), Autoregulation Programming (71.9%), Augmented Feedback (68.8%), and Fatigue/Performance Monitoring (65.6%). For IMU, CAM, and APP no activity was reported by a majority of current and former users. In terms of when subjects learned about resistance training technologies, the majority reported Formal Education Coursework (55.0%) and Research Involvement (55.0%), with the next most reported being Internships (45.0%) and Continuing Education (35.0%).

Conclusions: FP were the most commonly used technology, particularly for Vertical Jump Testing. Additionally, FP had the highest reported opinion of Accuracy and Reliability, but the second highest response for Expensiveness. Most subjects reported that LPT were Accurate, a Good Value, and Easy to Use, with the most common usage being Force-Velocity Profiling. Practical Application: These data provide insight into how strength and conditioning practitioners perceive and use common resistance training technologies, which may inform other coaches of how to implement technology into their own practice. More data is needed to allow for comparisons between different types of training settings and populations.

Acknowledgements: None